1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Psalms 2:7.

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by John D. Brey, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    In the thread on Psalm 2:6-7, focus was directed primarily to the anomaly that in Psalms 2:6 the Jewish interpreters interpolate, possibly worse in that verse than any other, the Hebrew word נסך to mean "anoint" or "establish" when in the Tanakh it never means that. Traditionalists pointed out that the best lexicons translate the word (נסך) "anoint" or "establish," such that these traditionalists had to be shown that that the lexicons don't actually do the exegesis on the word but merely note that in Psalms 2:6 (and there alone) the Jewish interpreters interpret the word to speak of "anoint" or "establish." -----In the lexicons, the very interpolation that goes against the grain of the standard meaning of the word, and there are nearly seventy of them in the Tanakh, is listed as the singular case of the word being used in a manner unrelated to the meaning implied throughout the rest of the scripture.

    Throughout the Tanakh נסך means a "drink offering," or to pour out a drink offering; which kinda makes the dilemma confronted by a traditionally-minded Jew pretty explicit. ------And yet verse seven of Psalms chapter 2 only sticks the spear into the side of the Jewish interpreters when it states that this Messianic King being poured out on Zion is thereafter, the very day mind you, "begotten" as the Son of God:

    I have poured out my King on my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree חק [stated through the prophet Samuel 2, 7:14]: . . . Thou are my Son; This day have I begotten thee.

    Psalms 2:6-7.

    My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me and why are my cries so far from my help? . . . I'm poured out like water . . . evildoers have encircled me they paralyze my hands and feet so that I am powerless either to defend myself or flee.

    Psalms 22:2, 15, 17. Hirsch Tehillim translation and interpretation.​

    Displaying the power of the pen, Jeremiah's "lying pen of the scribe," is the fact that although Psalms 2:7 is quoted more often in the New Testament than any other Psalm, and despite the fact that throughout the New Testament Messiah is said to become the "Son of God" not at his physical birth (where he's born the traditional Messiah), but at his pouring out as a drink offering on the holy hill (Acts 13:33-37; Romans 1:4, etc.) Psalm 2:6 isn't mentioned one time in the New Testament. Which is to say that although Jesus is explicitly taught to be poured out as a drink offering, at which time he's lifted out of the grave by the right hand of God (Psalm 16:10; 9:14), in power and glory, still, because of the Jewish interpolation of one word, the whole of the New Testament scripture was denied the perfect one-two-punch (Psalms 2:6, 7) against her exegetical adversaries therein justifying Rashi's implication that it's legitimate to mistranslate such a passage to throw off the "sectarians" whereby he means "Christians."



    John
     
    #1 John D. Brey, Jul 28, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2019
  2. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    FOR I LIFT UP MY HAND TO HEAVEN. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture this is an oath by His throne. He states I lift up, for whoever takes an oath raises his hand and touches the object by which he swears. And by way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], during the time of exile He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel. He, therefore states that now in an acceptable time He will lift His hand to the highest heavens, the reference being to the great hand that fights on behalf of Israel.

    Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Deuteronomy 32:40.​

    Ramban comments on God's oath concerning the event that is the lifting up of the hand of God, the Beauty of Israel, subsequent to its first being "cast down from heaven unto the earth . . ." -----This lifting up of the fallen Beauty of Israel is taught throughout the Tanakh to be the parallel event of God's declaration of war against his enemies as well as the belated and glorious appearing of the Salvation of the Lord to Israel.

    This day I have begotten thee. Ask of me and I shall give the goyim for thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.

    Psalm 2:7-9.

    In perfect parallel to Ramban's commentary, Psalms 2:7-9 follows up the "pouring out" of God's would-be Son (v. 6), and his subsequent adoption as God's very Son (v. 7), with his inheriting the nations of the world precisely as was promised to Abraham as the high point of the fulfillment of the covenant to his spiritual Seed (v. 7-9). Ramban speaks of the casting down, the pouring out, of the Beauty of Israel, and the subsequent lifting up, at an acceptable time, of the great weapon held in God's hand (God's own papal ferula), wherewith he's to call the nations of the world to the covenant (Isaiah 11:10). He lifts up his Son on a banner נס to affect the inheritance of the saints throughout the world.

    This "banner" נס lifted up to draw the nations of the world to the covenant is the central element in Psalm's 2:6-7. It's literally the Beauty of Israel that Ramban claims will be cast down (poured out) and then lifted up in the right hand of God when God lifts the one anointing the holy hill with his blood out of the gates of death to establish him as the mezuzah you must kiss (Psalms 2:12) if you're to enter into the New Jerusalem:

    But you have given a banner נס to them that fear You, to raise them to its heights even as it adorns them as jewelry or adornment.

    Psalm 60:6, The Hirsch Tehillim, translation and interpretation.

    For you O Lord have heard my crys; You have granted them the inheritance of those that fear Your Name.

    Psalm 61:6.​

    In Psalms chapter 22, after the son of David speaks of being poured out like water, and having his feet and hands "paralyzed" (R. Hirsch) so that he can't defend himself or even escape, the Psalm tells those that fear God to praise him (v. 24) as he states that his cries will be "discharged before them that fear Him" (v. 26). While above, we read that a particular "banner" will be given to "them that fear him" (60:6), and that this "banner" נס, this inheritance given to them that fear God, will be emblematic of the cries of the suffering servant being heard by the father, and those that fear him, such that the very place of the cries, the place of the suffering, the pouring out like water נסך, become a particular adornment, jewelry, worn, by those who fear God, and who inherit His Son's Kingdom since they are "raised to the heights," wearing the banner נס, as the adornment picturing the pouring out נסך of God's Son on the altar.



    John
     
  3. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No. It's more than just 1 word.

    As I said in the previous thread; Rashi never implied "that it's legitimate to mistranslate such a passage to throw off the "sectarians" whereby he means "Christians."
     
  4. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . Actually you merely presented a place where Rashi didn't imply that. While I presented a place where he did: Judaic Press, Judaica Books of the Prophets, The Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 5.




    John
     
  5. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian


    If you take God's "palm" כ and place the "banner" נס spoken of throughout Psalms and Isaiah into that כ you get the word נסך, the word for God's "drink offering" poured out on Zion's holy hill (Psalm 2:6).

    נס = "banner"
    כ or in its ending form ך = "palm" as in the palm of God's hand.

    So together נס–ך we have the "drink offering" נסך dangling from the "banner" נס in God's "hand" ך. We have God lifting his own papal ferula in his hand (throughout the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah) whenever he speaks of calling the sacred-people of the covenant out of the nations scattered to the very ends of the earth.

    And in that day a Branch of Jesse shall stand as a banner נס for the people; through it the Gentiles shall seek [out our God].

    Isaiah 11:10.​

    . . . whoever takes an oath raises his hand and touches the object by which he swears. And by way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], during the time of exile He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel. He, therefore states that now in an acceptable time He will lift His hand to the highest heavens, the reference being to the great hand that fights on behalf of Israel.

    Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Deuteronomy 32:40.​

    God raises the thing by which he swears in his right hand. It's the Beauty of Israel, תפארת, tiferet:

    God has sworn out a decree by his right hand and by the strength of what's in his right hand . . . Lift a banner נס for the people. Behold the Lord has proclaimed unto the end of the world . . . Zion behold they Salvation is coming; Behold his reward is with him; his saving work is done.

    Isaiah 62:8-11.​



    John
     
  6. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    If it's legit, please provide a quote from Rashi which says anything about "sectarians" or "Christians".

    So far, it looks like the author of your source is offering an opinion. It is "preaching to the choir".
     
  7. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    That's a really cool theory John. I'm being completely honest.

    Alternatively; It could be נ-סך. Where the nun is prefix for future tense. The vav could be implied. This would render "will be anointed."

    There is a lot that a person can do with the letters if they become creative. And that's why it's nice to have Rashi and others to stay grounded and maintain a connection to convention.
     
  8. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    John, did Rashi write the book you are quoting?

    By the way, I'm searching online for this book, and I can't find it.
     
    #8 dybmh, Jul 28, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2019
  9. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . If the nun is a prefix, the word is סך which means a "multitude." You gotta come up with a vav. And btw, if I'm not mistaken, a nun prefix would be a plural, "we will anoint.". . Which I guess you could align with "let us create." <s>




    John
     
  10. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    When searched "נסך" I only found 7 occurrences. 19 for "נסך*".

    What was the search criteria you used that resulted in "nearly seventy"?
     
  11. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . With all the prefixed and suffixed versions of the word there are about 60 in the Tanakh.



    John
     
  12. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Prefixed and suffixed versions rule out the "palm/banner" theory, doesn't it?

    Also... search for nun-samech. It is rarely a "banner". It more often is translated to "fled". The entire justification for your claim that there is a cover-up regarding the translation of psalm 2 is based on the frequency of the word nun-samech-chaf to drink offering, right? So going back to your theory (restating it below)

    If the most frequently used translation is "correct", this is the focus of your claim, then nun-samech should be translated to fled. Replacing this in your theory above, the drink offering fled from God's palm.

    This doesn't fit the christian Jesus story. But it does fit some other theories about Jesus. It fits if Jesus was a Jewish prophet who went astray. Someone who had potential, but fled from God's hand.

    This is why I said in the previous thread. At some point, arguments like the one you are making which are based on deviating from convention require a leap of faith and are really only convincing to those who already believe the story of Jesus.

    (( And this ignores the misquoting of the Rashi in post #4. ))

    In this case I presume, please correct me if I'm wrong, you already believe the story of Jesus. Because of that the imagery of a drink offering being poured out resonates with you and with your beliefs. But for others, the imagery of the anointed fleeing from God's hand resonates with their beliefs.

    There's nothing wrong with either of these points of view, IMO. But, if someone starts to claim that their my non-conventional approach is correct and the conventional approach is wrong; they need more proof than what is being presented here.
     
  13. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,103
    Ratings:
    +5,078
    Religion:
    Jewish
    and the letter chaf sofit by itself does not "mean" anything. It is a letter. The name of the letter derives from its shape, but that never plays into the meaning as Hebrew is not a pictogramatic alphabet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,009
    Ratings:
    +6,966
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Thank you.
     
  15. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . Not necessarily since the root word is a "banner" in a "palm." ---- In some cases the prefix or suffix will actually lend itself to the wordplay. For instance, in Psalm 2:6 the word is נסכתי.

    Rosends stated that the Hebrew isn't pictographic. And he's correct only so far as the ktav ashuris is concerned. But the true sacred script, ktav ivri, is the hieroglyphic revelation par excellent. Ktav ashuris is actually a goy script. Only ktav ivri is truly Jewish. And it's pictographic.

    Now back to the "palm/banner" theory, as you call it. In the ktav ivri script the tav is a Latin-cross, or a "cross" in one form or another. And the "cross" is the summum bonum so far as symbolizing "judgement." It's the world-class symbol of judgment.

    So although the ktav ashuris isn't pictographic, it nevertheless strives to keep the spirit of ktav ivri alive. Ergo, in the ktav ashuris, the tav is formed by a ligature combining a nun and a dalet. The ktav ashuris tav is a nun נ squeezed up against (a ligature) a dalet ד. The דנ when forming a ligature becomes ת.

    A ligature is formed when two letters make a new letter. Usually the new letter means the same thing as the two letters forming the ligature. And sure enough, the letters דן (dalet nun) spell "judgment," such that that's what the ligature symbolizes. The ktav ashuris tav symbolizes דן "judgment," just as the ktav ivri tav, the cross, symbolizes "judgment." And since the tav is the final letter, it symbolizes the final Judgment. If you can swallow that.

    And the yod י is the preeminent symbol of "circumcision." Any Jewish sage worth his salt will tell you that the yod represents circumcision, which, circumcision, is the sign of the covenant, such that the "banner" in the "palm" is a "cross" (the final Judgment required, even as the tav is the final letter); so that the yod, circumcision, the true circumcision, is being performed on the ultimate male-member of the Jewish body as he hangs on a "cross" which is a banner, where the ultimate drink offering is being poured out נסך once and for all: literally for all.

    נס–כ–תי = The banner, in the palm of God's hand (the papal ferula) lifted up as the cross, where the true circumcision is taking place to signify the final sacrifice in the Jewish system, and the final Judgment required to appease God for Adam's sin.

    Of course Moses held up a precursor to this banner. It was a coiled-serpent (which is the symbolism of the samech) on a branch (which is the symbolism of the extended-nun ן). . . And like a latter-day Nehushtan, when Israel looked up at the Branch ן with the coiled-serpent ס they were Saved.



    John
     
    #15 John D. Brey, Jul 29, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
  16. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,103
    Ratings:
    +5,078
    Religion:
    Jewish
    No, you are mistaken. First, there is much talmudic (and post) about what ktav the text was given in. Two of the three primary opinions in the talmud indicate that it was given in Ashuris. Regardless, the thing is, the language is not pictographic. In either written script. Though what you are calling Ivri had its letters develop from pictographs (which is why a vav, a cane or stick, is shaped like that) the language in use does not invoke the meanings of individual letter names to create sense. That the mem developed from the image of waves and water does not mean that any word with a mem in it has a meaning related to water necessarily. So to claim that the chaf sofit must make the word point to a hand is flat out wrong.

    Now, if you want to say that kabbalists and mystics have a track record of delving into letter shapes, the answer is, sure they do, but not to create the surface meaning of words as you are doing here. And they do so within a tradition of understanding which you are sidestepping. So you can continue to pick and choose and apply your own rules whenever you so see fit. But it ends up like any bad code -- GIGO.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . Anyone who's read the opinions realizes the various reasons it would be preferable to believe ktav ashuris is the sacred original script. But for far too many reasons it's probably not. It's an Assyrian script (ergo the name) that Israel adopted during the Babylonian captivity. The respected Professor of ancient languages Joseph Naveh says:

    The Hebrew script [ktav ivri] was used infrequently by Jews until the Second War against the Romans, and thereafter it was preserved only by the Samaritans. . . We face an extraordinary phenomenon: the Jews, a conservative nation which adhered strictly to its traditional values, abandoned their own script in favour of a foreign one. . . neither expediency nor ideology--- at least in the Persian period--- explains the Jews' preference for the Aramaic script, since the Aramaic and the Hebrew scripts had the same twenty-two letters.​

    Ktav ashuris is an uncircumcised script: a goy script. So whereas the ktav ivri letter tav, the final letter, is a "cross," symbolizing in sacred form, we could say nakedly, uncovered, in hieroglyphic form, the "final judgment," we note that the ktav ashuris tav attempts to cover up the very salvific-Branch ן (the nun) pointed out in this thread to be ornamented with a serpent, the samech ס (forming the divine ferula symbolized by Nehushtan, the salvific-branch in Mose's right hand), such that Jews who accept the uncircumcised script, the goy script, aren't aware of what's going on when a drink offering is lifted up on Golgotha, and poured out, signifying that the "final Judgment" required by God is now in the Books, so to say.

    Since hieroglyphically, the dalet is a "door" or "veil" hiding, protecting, what's inside, it's obviously significant that whereas the sacred-script presents the final Judgment nakedly, by means of a "cross," the goy script, ktav ashuris, tries to cover up the salvific-Branch (the nun) by means of a dalet, a door, or veil, trying to hide what is evident to circumcised eyes: Nehushtan is God's Son in ancient typology.

    The ktav ashuris tav is a ligature whereby the Branch where salvation hangs and is poured out is covered up by a dalet. The ktav ashuris tav is a nun squeezed into a dalet ת = דנ so that the circumspect nature of the salvific-Branch, the nun, can be hidden by means of an uncircumcised script.

    We can know this is the case for a number of reasons, one being the fact that the two letters squeezed together to form the ligature ת, i.e., the nun נ and the dalet ד, spell out the Hebrew word "din" (dalet-nun) which means "Judgment," such that since this ligature is the final statement of the Hebrew alef-bet (the final letter/ligature), and the Sages say the alphabet represents the entire Torah, we're safe to assume the final Judgment, din, דנ or ת, if uncovered from the orlah, the fleshly attempt to hide it, is the "Cross" (the final letter/'statement in the priestly script/text, ktav ivri), the wooden Branch, where salvation is "poured out" נס–ך, when God lifts a banner נס in the palm ך of his hand, signifying that the "final" Judgment דנ, ת , in the Jewish system of purification, sanctification, and ultimately salvation, has been receive so that Salvation is here, now, free, for the taking.



    John
     
    #17 John D. Brey, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
  18. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    . . . This is a topic that probably goes deeper than we forum participants care to go into ancient languages and their development. Nevertheless, there's a fundamental difference between what's called a "demotic" script, versus a "hieroglyphic" script. The latter is a priestly phenomenon whereby the deepest steams of revelation come out of the pictographic nature of the script, whereas in the demotic scripts, the sacred has been profaned in order to use the script, the text, the language, to talk about profane things.

    The sacred, priestly, dimension of the Torah, is covered up by the ktav ashuris script, which is a demotic script, which nevertheless hasn't yet destroyed the spirit of the sacred priestly text, but only, as in the case of the letter tav, covered up what is naked in the sacred, priestly, text; though a discerning eye can still see what the veil of profanity is trying to utterly extinguish in order to allow the profane to speak in place of the priestly.

    There are still priest who know what's being hidden; though they are few and far between.



    John
     
    #18 John D. Brey, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
  19. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    The earth was originally covered by water. So that the water was earth's womb, such that the mem מ is taken to mean "mom" or "womb." And the "dry land" comes out of the womb without the womb being opened up before the dry earth suddenly appears unexpected like; like Messiah is said to come out of a womb unexpectedly, a womb not already previously opened up so that we're naturally expecting Messiah in nine months or so instead of the same day the earth where he lies is deflowered.

    In nine verses in Isaiah Messiah is said to come out of a closed-womb; his birth is unexpected. No one knew he was even in there let alone able to "open the womb" (Ex. 13:2) with the nails already in his hands (Matt 27:51):

    Before she is made able, she births; before she consummates her pledge [through phallic-sex] she’s delivered of, or by, the birth of a unique male child. Who has heard of such a thing? . . . Shall the earth flower and bring forth the same day the soil is opened for the first time? . . . Who has seen such a thing? To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he too shall come up out of a closed-womb ם that has neither been tilled nor watered prior to his miraculous appearing.

    Isaiah 66:7-8; 53:1-2.​

    The Talmud tells us the closed-mem ם is the original. The opened-mem מ is a re-do, subsequent to Adam's opening Eve to conceive of Cain, and a damned race born, every time, save one, the Savior, by the fleshly serpent Abraham conceived of, ritually, as being bled to death in order to re-instituted (R. Hirsch) the original covenant whereby all Jewish firstborn would be "womb-openers" (Ex 13:2) just like Messiah.



    John
     
    #19 John D. Brey, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
  20. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,893
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Christian
    All mysticism, if it's merely mystical, is bunk. There's no legitimate mysticism in the sense of some willy nilly mystical insight unhinged to the literal meaning of the text.

    So that's where you and I can meet as brothers and like-minded god-fearers. I will never present unhinged mystical BS. If you can show me, carefully, lovingly, that my so-called mysticism is unhinged from the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew text I will join you in dousing it with fuel and setting it aflame; for at best it's merely sound and fury signifying nothing. . . The Hebrew text is the anchor of the soul so that woe betides any soul who would attempt to speak against it, for it, or apart from it, in a manner that demeans or deconstructs, wrongfully, its complete and utter authority.



    John
     
    #20 John D. Brey, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
Loading...